comptext_pack_context

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions deterministic behavior and sha256 hashes, but fails to disclose whether the tool is idempotent, has side effects (e.g., file creation), or requires specific permissions. Mutation intent is implied but not explicitly clarified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it sacrifices information for brevity. Parameter details are missing, making it less useful despite being concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having only one parameter and an output schema (unknown content), the description fails to explain how 'max_bytes' affects the context pack (e.g., truncation behavior). For a simple tool, this gap is significant.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter 'max_bytes' (optional, default 250KB) is entirely undocumented in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description provides no meaning beyond the schema itself. The parameter's purpose, effect, and acceptable values are absent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a 'deterministic context pack' with 'stable file order and sha256 hashes,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'comptext_contract_check' or 'comptext_github_pack'. However, the term 'context pack' may be domain-specific and could be clearer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., when a non-deterministic pack is acceptable). No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.